|
Post by dhglawdavid on Jan 18, 2004 17:09:09 GMT 1
Well.. that was an impressive response by the authorities to my earlier post on here observing that there seem to be few if any speed cameras in the county! According to the Star a number of them are shortly to be erected at "blackspots", i.e. maximum revenue earning positions. As any shortfall in their operating costs will have to be met by those authorities I think I have a pretty good idea as to what sort of locations will be selected. But they have missed something. When the original 3 points endorsement 12 points disqualification legislation was brought in there were NO speed cameras in this country...now there are hundreds with many more in the pipeline, especially with characters like the Chief Constable of North Wales chairing the police road safety committee! As a result of this I think I am right in saying there are currently over 15,000 motorists disqualified under the totting up procedure. Come on guys...these 15,000 are proven revenue earners and have now been put out of commission! Surely a reduction in the endorsement value for speeding to 1 point would not only be fairer in the light of the changed circumstances regarding speed cameras but would also maximise the revenue by keeping these motorists on the road? As confirmed by posts on this site...there is no differentiation in points if you are caught doing 37 in a 30m.p.h limit at 3p.m or 3a.m. So the logical conclusion is that a large number of those now disqualified have been so for no particular reason other than that they drive more frequently than others and therefore percentage wise are more likely to rack up those 12 points. Circumstances have changed drastically since the original speeding legislation was passed...surely a review of such legislation is now urgently overdue?
|
|
|
Post by LOL YOU on Jan 18, 2004 17:46:42 GMT 1
Simple stick to the speed limits, should you go over 30 mph say doing 37 mph at anytime is breaking the law, simple as that, if everyone stuck within the limits then there would be no problem.
|
|
|
Post by telfordSHREWS on Jan 18, 2004 18:14:36 GMT 1
Shame really a bit like the telford fan thats got a ban,cos he broke the rules at crewe, he's meant not to be a trouble maker, but they all want him let off, init "LOL YOU guest"
|
|
|
Post by R6ix on Jan 18, 2004 18:54:08 GMT 1
do you drive lol you? probably not, i defy any one to say that they never go over the limit? its not possible we all do,if this speed camera safety partnership group is a private company then they are out to make money? speeders = money = profits? but there more concerned with safety right? right
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2004 18:58:50 GMT 1
There should be a law to stop people under-speeding i.e. travelling at 30 mph through a 40 mph zone, these people infuriate a lot of other drivers.
I was having an argument about speeding and the increased fines with my housemate the other day' one of his main poits was that "driving is a privalage'
I'd probably agree with that if pubic transport in this country wasn't so poor, slow, run-down and expensive. For example for me to get from Hammermsith to Shrewsbury via public transport - 40 mins on the tube, 3hrs (If I'm incredibly lucky) on the train, not to mention the walking time between stations and places to get to etc. That's 4 hrs of travelling, a journey that takes a maximum of 2 and a half hours by car!
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Jan 18, 2004 19:30:58 GMT 1
Drivers can be, and have been, prosecuted for driving too slowly, there is existing legislation I agree that slow drivers are infuriating It's all about driving according to the road conditions People who can't drive faster than 40 on an open road with a 60pmh speed limit in perfect conditions aren't fit to be on the road in my opinion
|
|
Steve_O
Shropshire County League
Posts: 45
|
Post by Steve_O on Jan 18, 2004 21:37:07 GMT 1
the police say that speed cameras are ther for safety 2 motorists. wot a joke, they are all scavvy b*stards, they pay 'em extra time to sit at a road side 2 get people for doin bout 4mph ova the limit. take the WRC, in any other country the authorities watch the rally drivers go from stage to stage in their road cars on the roads wiv the public on them as wel. but does the british police do that....nope they sit in their undercover car wiv a spped gun, they caught about 7 of the rally drivers and their teams (only just) speedin from stage top stage as they don't have much time between 'em. bloody police, they fink they're it, dont they!
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper2 on Jan 19, 2004 2:28:54 GMT 1
With the greatest respect.. you are posting like a new meadow anti campaigner writing nonsesne in the shrewsbury chronicle
speed guns are operated by NON traffic cops - the lady who uses the gun outside telford fire station used to work at sainsburys
if you are caught speeding and blue lighted by a highly qualified police driver at least you have the chance to discuss the merits of your driving before he decides if u are getting a ticket or not
Speed cameras are £60 pay up now or come to court and face £1000 fine. Against human rights, against traffic police wishes and simply an earner for the inland revenue.
I have spent the past month on the train and being driven by extreamly kind friends who I owe so much to. Have you ever been late for a job and had to get a taxi and pay £66 cause the train was late...? Refused to go on a train cause a passanger has 'shat' themselves..? Been on a one train carrage packed solid with £30,000+ worth of equipment..?
for someone who has had 2 friends killed in crashes...when im president.. town centre and villages 20mph, main roads 70 and dual carriageways n motorways 90mph please
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Jan 19, 2004 11:10:30 GMT 1
Much as I dislike speed cameras or indeed the idea or being caght speeding, I cant help thinking that a lot of the press is totally backward. They are not another tax on drivers, unlike just about any tax I know it is optional to pay or not, ie, you dont pay unless you break the law and exceed the speed limit, all cars have speedos so you know if you are above the limit, and if you are, then its your choice. If there were not so many people speeding, no one would make a profit and the cameras would be defunct, simple as that, no fines, no profit. As for penalty points, if we did not have them, speeding would be a past time for the wealthy, to whom £30 would be nothing, but to whom the prospect of loosing your licence would be a deterent.
I have a young grandson, and if he ran into the road I would rather the approaching cars be doing 30 rather than 37mph.
|
|
|
Post by Nickjonesy on Jan 19, 2004 13:29:45 GMT 1
Even at 30mph I would fear for your grandson's safety. I agree that the points system needs overhauling (not least because I am currently on 9 points) Vehicle safety has improved significantly and the design and braking systems (ABS etc) all assist safer driving whilst maintaining a higher speed. Fines should be means tested taking into account the personal circumstances of the individual. Unfortunately this method would cost more and reduce the ease that people can be processed, so it may never happen. My license is in peril until August when 3 points disappear. I honestly do not think I will be able to keep it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2004 13:41:05 GMT 1
Agree strongly with Matt.
This genuinely could be a vote winner for the Tories if they have anough nouse to put together a coherent policy on it asap.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 19, 2004 14:12:26 GMT 1
People drive much too fast in built up areas, please remember that 30/40mph is is a maximum - not the minimum plus 10% that many drivers seem to think it is.
Gareth, you know where I live - how do you think I feel when I see people driving down my road at 40mph when my grandchildren live around the corner?
I would incease the speed limits to 90mph on motorways and some dualed A roads, but reduce it to 20mph in residential areas.
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Jan 19, 2004 14:17:49 GMT 1
Instead of all this profiteering, why not build more speed ramps in built up area's which do slow most drivers down, with exception to the ones on townwalls that are smaller than most car's wheel bases,
|
|
|
Post by robspaceman1 on Jan 19, 2004 14:41:39 GMT 1
re: kids running out into the road - how about ensuring they are not running out into the road in the first place? of course i agree that cars should be slowed down in built-up areas, but a combination of proper road safety awareness - and perhaps fines for jay-walking as in other countries - would get the number killed reduced significantly.
re: speed humps in built-up areas. agreed they slow drivers down, but in london there have been more than a few cases of ambulances/fire trucks/police cars not arriving on time to deal with their situation with alarming consequences. also ambulances hate these speed humps as the patient inside is thrown all over the place - in delicate situations this can be life-threatening.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Jan 19, 2004 14:56:39 GMT 1
Absolutely right Robspaceman. And if I ever see him do it Ill kick his little ass, but they do.It only takes a split second distraction and they are off, and the point about 30 rather than 37 is that that extra 7 mph could mean the difference in breaking distance between one terrified kid staring at a bumper with my foot up his ass or one with life threatening head injuries or worse.
|
|
|
Post by telfordSHREWS on Jan 19, 2004 15:56:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by welshshrew5 on Jan 19, 2004 16:29:30 GMT 1
I agree Dave, but I wonder how many speed vans are ever put in such residential areas.
Even if they appeared there once every 3 months for a bit, I'm sure word would get round.
|
|